Short discourse on the sciences and the nation

It’s well known that throughout time people have understood each other and themselves through misgivings, ill-fortune, and insanity. It’s the vain of the scientist to study the aspect of creation which is of concern, and immerse themselves in its foundation. Of late regarding that of ‘his’ concern, the subjects are of extreme accuteness, and generally when such intricate formalities are in question, as established mandate. In topics of study with universal applicability, its common that misgivings of the scientist become, cravings and finally desperation, before a vanguard, poised on the brink of revelations, and salvation, if not usually in himself, then in his subjects who in turn observe and study him. The technique of studying a man, as a subject, with objective persuasion, is the topic of this discourse. Whether it’s inevitable insanity that ensues, effecting the mind of the observer; is a matter of choice. A choice as to whether the parties pursue a goal, and how vigorously they do it. This fact, in competitive spirit, as working in tandem with the governmental agenda, creates the current social state of disrepute, whereby the pride of the leadership, is the predominating factor, as so capable of representing the will of the status quo, and as setting ‘this’ nation against ‘that’. A question of loyalty and a matter formalizing the persuasion of truth in good reason results in the informal negotiation of mental health practitioners, with the public, as so deemed of threat to the nation. Perhaps a version of moderate social warfare, it’s the method of the post cold-war vanguard with diluted practices of covert extremism. When considering the ethics of both parties here, that of the government and those of its citizens; the predominate questions are: How secure is the nation? What sub-cultural exposure exists? How much different is foreign power offering a person against local national offering? At what form is this Power Divide understood and readily displayed? Is it clear in ones agenda, and if not should it be?